In his book Politics and the English Language, George Orwell wrote, “it is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy…. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.”

Seventy years later, Orwell’s insight on the use and abuse of the English language still rings true. Take for example, the Clinton/Obama attack on Hungary for being “undemocratic.”

advertisement

In May, Bill Clinton said that Hungary and Poland “decided this democracy is too much trouble” and that they “want Putin-like leadership: ‘just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out.’” He was attacking — and slandering – Hungary for blocking the entry of a few hundred thousand Muslim migrants, many of them from Syria.

Last October, Rob Berschinski, the Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, visited Hungary to lecture about the Obama administration’s “concerns with the democratic backsliding in Hungary.” Just as Orwell said, Clinton and the Obama administration called Hungary undemocratic because they don’t like its immigration policies.

It’s hard to see what is “undemocratic” about responding to the needs and expressed demands of “we the people.” In fact, Hungary is acting very democratically by holding a referendum to ask the Hungarian people this question:

“Do you want the European Union to be able, even without the approval of the Hungarian parliament, to prescribe mandatory relocation of non-Hungarian nationals to Hungary?”

By any sensible or traditional definition, democracy means rule of the people – the people of each nation. Hungary is one of the few Europeans governments which is allowing its citizens to themselves decide the nation’s immigration policy as opposed to globalist bureaucrats from Brussels.

In response to the Clinton-Obama slander, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, came to Hungary’s defense. He explained the situation perfectly, noting, “Hungary was totally justified in what it is doing to try to stem the flow” of refugees and that the State Department should not attack it for “trying to protect the national sovereignty of its own country.”

Of course, the Clinton Global Initiative and Obama’s State Department have a different view of democracy– in Europe and elsewhere. To a globalist like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the government of Hungary is acting undemocratically if it does not submit to the decisions of the “people” of the “super-state,” the European Union. To a globalist, Hungary’s borders are archaic fictions. Fortunately, the people of Hungary have not bowed to this arrogance.

Unlike Hungarians, Americans have never been asked whether they want to transform their country through mass immigration. In contrast to democratic Hungary, for the past fifty years Americans have not been allowed to choose their immigration policies. In the United States, political elites have conspired to erode border controls despite public opposition.

When Congress voted to resume mass immigration with Sen. Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, the bill’s goals were misrepresented to the American people. Advocates claimed, in the words of Sen. Kennedy, the bill would not “inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations” and that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Yet the 1965 law did exactly that — and since then, neither political party has acted to bring mass immigration under control.

Poll after poll has showed that Americans want secure borders, reduced immigration and our immigration laws enforced. Yet, Congress continues to debate bills that grant immediate amnesty on the promise of eventual border security—not today, but sometime in the future. The only time Congress summoned the courage to demand the building of a border wall, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, it passed in a lame duck session. Lawmakers back peddled the next year by refusing to fund the legislation.

A recent Pew Center poll shows that even among Hispanic citizens, twice as many people want immigration reduced as want it increased—35 percent versus 18 percent. Yet, for decades corporate interests have ensured that both parties do not nominate a candidate who will offer a serious alternative. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney held views on mass immigration not all that different from those of Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

This November 8, 2016, that betrayal of American democracy may end: Americans will finally have a choice. One major party candidate, Donald Trump, promises to protect American sovereignty. Three others promise to continue our open borders policies.

That Americans are being offered a choice has Washington’s policy establishment in a state of panic. Trump and his supporters are denounced as nativists, nationalists, and fascists for suggesting our politicians put American interests ahead of mass immigration and the admission of jihadist refugees. Yet the vicious name-calling has not changed the landscape: a large majority of American citizens clearly want secure borders and an end to illegal entry.

While candidate Donald Trump needs to clarify some of his immigration proposals, his priority for border security offers a clear contrast to the priorities championed by Hillary Clinton. For example, Trump has consistently supported building a border wall and keeping unvetted Syrian refugees out of the country. Hungary and Israel have already proven that fences do work, and the American people are tired of excuses, lies and hyperbole.

European countries like Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and France have allowed entry by millions of Muslim refugees, leading to escalating incidents of mass sexual assault, murder and terrorism, and London now has a Muslim Mayor—elected by a political party now dependent on the Muslim vote.

Hungary has avoided these consequences by simply keeping the refugees out. That policy is proving very popular and successful.

Border control is about more than combating terrorism. Because Islam’s Shariah Law is deeply hostile to Western norms, values and legal institutions, the millions of law abiding Muslims not engaged in jihad are still altering the culture of Europe. Civil liberties, religious tolerance and political democracy are incompatible with orthodox, devout Islam.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban sounded a lot like Donald Trump when he said in February of this year, “We want to import no crime, terrorism, homophobia or anti-Semitism to Hungary.” In spite of opposition from the EU, Hungary has constructed a border fence, and contrary to the claims that these fences are impossible to create and will bankrupt the country, its 100 miles of fencing on the Serbian border cost approximately $100 million. The border wall in Hungary has been such a success they are extending it to the Croatian border.

While the US Mexican Border is much longer—1,954 miles — at that rate, it would cost less than $2 billion compared to the $50 billion critics claim.

It goes without saying that I do not support all of the Hungary’s policies. But on the key issues of national sovereignty and border control, issues affecting its survival and the survival of all Western nations, it has admirably represented the interests of its citizens. Rather than attack Hungary as undemocratic for cracking down on unlawful refugees, Americans should look to them as an inspiration for how to adopt a truly democratic immigration policy.

In the United States, we do not have national referenda, we have presidential elections. But the 2016 election has become a de facto referendum on immigration policy and secure borders. That referendum is long overdue.